Is there something wrong with your 24-105? The 24-70/4L doesn't seem like a very logical upgrade path for most people, in my opinion. It's only a bit more to go with the unrivaled 24-70/2.8L II, unless you want a lens somewhat improved over the 24-105 and have to have a stabilizer for some reason.

I am considering getting a 24-70 f4 to replace my 5 year old 24-105 to use on a 5D3. has any one got one and are you pleased with it.

The 24-70mm f/4.0 IS is a hyped up lens and for most purposes peice of junk if you don't need the macro. Many review sites confirm that it has boarderline image quality in the middle of the zoom range. Both the-digital-picture.com and lensrentals confirm that it is very poor in the middle of the zoom range, and that's after testing just under 30 copies. Lens rentals downplays it's performance in the middle of the zoom range, but it's actually worse at 50mm than the 24-105mm is at 24mm, and most people complain about that lens at 24mm. In fact it has the lowest single average score with multiple copies tested and averaged at 50mm than any other pro normal zoom. It's so bad that no matter how much you stop it down at 50mm, it will never be as sharp as the 24-105mm is at 50mm wide open, because it hits the diffraction limit before the IQ becomes anything less than extremely poor.

This lens is so incredibly bad at 50mm, that the old entry level non-pro 28-135mm IS that has very poor reviews is actually much much better at 50mm f/4.5 than this lens is at 50mm f/4.5. Which is a serious acheivement for a pro lens.

I purchased a copy and did an extensive comparison with over 600 shots of a test target and after doing both visual comparison and computer analysis from 24-70mm the 24-70mm f/4 had EQUAL image quality to the 24-105mm, if not slightly worse on average. It was much better at 24mm, much much worse at 50mm and around equal at 70mm. To say the least it went straight back, I don't need a lens that has worse image quality, costs nearly twice as much and has only 2/3rds the zoom range.

I know of at least 3 people that have purchased this lens on hype and returned it. Besides that it's a terrible investment as Canon is sure to drop the price over 30% in the next 6 months as they have done with every new release in the last year. While the 24-105mm has a virtually fixed price.

This lens WILL be better for you if you want macro, need a slightly smaller and lighter lens (very slight) or shoot at 24mm and 70mm more than 40mm,50mm, & 60mm, but again it's twice as much and slated for a huge price drop.

I am considering getting a 24-70 f4 to replace my 5 year old 24-105 to use on a 5D3.

24-70 f/4...? Is that a typo? If you were talking about the new 24-70 f/2.8II then this is valid conversation. Why on earth would you consider swapping a 24-105 f/4is for the 24-70 f/4? The 24-105 is a great lens. It's kind of mysterious why the 24-70 f/4 even exists. Really, what's the point of it? Don't give it another thought and stay with your perfectly fine current lens.

I am considering getting a 24-70 f4 to replace my 5 year old 24-105 to use on a 5D3. has any one got one and are you pleased with it.

The 24-70mm f/4.0 IS is a hyped up lens and for most purposes peice of junk if you don't need the macro. Many review sites confirm that it has boarderline image quality in the middle of the focal range. Both the-digital-picture.com and lensrentals confirm that it is very poor in the middle of the focal range, and that's after testing just under 30 copies. Lens rentals downplays it's performance in the middle of the focal range, but it's actually worse at 50mm than the 24-105mm is at 24mm, and most people complain about that lens at 24mm. In fact it has the lowest single average score with multiple copies tested and averaged at 50mm than any other pro normal zoom. It's so bad that no matter how much you stop it down at 50mm, it will never be as sharp as the 24-105mm is at 50mm wide open, because it hits the diffraction limit before the IQ becomes anything less than extremely poor.

This lens is so incredibly bad at 50mm, that the old entry level non-pro 28-135mm IS that has very poor reviews is actually much much better at 50mm f/4.5 than this lens is at 50mm f/4.5. Which is a serious acheivement for a pro lens.

I purchased a copy and did an extensive comparison with over 600 shots of a test target and after doing both visual comparison and computer analysis from 24-70mm the 24-70mm f/4 had EQUAL image quality to the 24-105mm, if not slightly worse on average. It was much better at 24mm, much much worse at 50mm and around equal at 70mm. To say the least it went straight back, I don't need a lens that has worse image quality, costs nearly twice as much and has only 2/3rds the zoom range.

I know of at least 3 people that have purchased this lens on hype and returned it. Besides that it's a terrible investment as Canon is sure to drop the price over 30% in the next 6 months as they have done with every new release in the last year. While the 24-105mm has a virtually fixed price.

This lens WILL be better for you if you want macro, need a slightly smaller and lighter lens (very slight) or shoot at 24mm and 70mm more than 40mm,50mm, & 60mm, but again it's twice as much and slated for a huge price drop.

I am going to purchase a prime lens in the 85-135mm range, mostly for portraits and indoor shots on my 6D. I already have a 70-200mm 2.8 II, but I often don't want to lug all that weight around.

I've been leaning towards the 135L, but recently have been thinking about buying a 100L macro for roughly the same cost as the 135 and using it for portraits and tightly framed indoor shots. The 100L's macro capability would just be a nice plus I probably wouldn't use that much.

My concern with the 100L macro for my intended use is that I've heard it is soft beyond 10-15 feet. I certainly need a lens that is capable of sharp pictures at longer ranges than that. Does anyone who has used this lens have any comments or experience to share?

Since portrait and general purpose shooting is my primary need, should I just skip the macro lens for now and pick up the 135L? I imagine I'll own both lenses eventually, but it might be 6-12 months before my next lens purchase.

The 100mm macro has harsh bokeh past macro distance. It should never be chosen as a portrait lens.

This is the same guy who say this about the 100mmL...

I wonder about your "reviews"... so far you couldn't be farther from the truth. I call total BS.

carlc

I like the 24-70mm f/4 IS very much. I originally bought the f/2.8 MkII, it is a fantastic lens, however I need the IS for low light event shooting. But, back to the subject at hand, while I had the 2.8 MkII I rented the Tamron, in my opinion, not as good as Canon. When the f/4 came out, I rented it and compared it to the f/2.8 and "for what I need" the f/4 was the winner and I returned the f/2.8 and bought the f/4. All comparisons done on a 5dMkIII.

Price was not the issue, the new hybrid IS on the f/4 allows me more than enough room to make up for the one stop difference and I get all the benefits of IS (yes, I give up one stop of DOF, but check out the DOF calculator - it is minimal). Where in the world these folks are coming from saying the 24-105 IQ is better than the 24-70 f/4, either don't own the 24-70 f/4 or they are trolls. The IS on the 24-105 is old 2nd generation and does not hold a candle to the new 24-70 f/4 and 70-200 f/2.8 MkII. This hybrid IS is rock solid.

I just wish the naysayers would come out and honestly say whether they have actually shot with the lens or not. Further, on an actual shoot and not shooting a bunch of test circles. (I have never been paid a penny for test shots). Finally, I need IS and it is my money, so don't critisize me for my shortcomings (unless you are willing to pay good money for it).

I love Canon products and applaud them for offering a wide range of great products with a wide range of price points. Finally, if they introduce a f/2.8 IS, I would strongly consider buying it just because I can!

I like the 24-70mm f/4 IS very much. I originally bought the f/2.8 MkII, it is a fantastic lens, however I need the IS for low light event shooting. But, back to the subject at hand, while I had the 2.8 MkII I rented the Tamron, in my opinion, not as good as Canon. When the f/4 came out, I rented it and compared it to the f/2.8 and "for what I need" the f/4 was the winner and I returned the f/2.8 and bought the f/4. All comparisons done on a 5dMkIII.

Price was not the issue, the new hybrid IS on the f/4 allows me more than enough room to make up for the one stop difference and I get all the benefits of IS (yes, I give up one stop of DOF, but check out the DOF calculator - it is minimal). Where in the world these folks are coming from saying the 24-105 IQ is better than the 24-70 f/4, either don't own the 24-70 f/4 or they are trolls. The IS on the 24-105 is old 2nd generation and does not hold a candle to the new 24-70 f/4 and 70-200 f/2.8 MkII. This hybrid IS is rock solid.

I just wish the naysayers would come out and honestly say whether they have actually shot with the lens or not. Further, on an actual shoot and not shooting a bunch of test circles. (I have never been paid a penny for test shots). Finally, I need IS and it is my money, so don't critisize me for my shortcomings (unless you are willing to pay good money for it).

I love Canon products and applaud them for offering a wide range of great products with a wide range of price points. Finally, if they introduce a f/2.8 IS, I would strongly consider buying it just because I can!

I am considering getting a 24-70 f4 to replace my 5 year old 24-105 to use on a 5D3. has any one got one and are you pleased with it.

The 24-70mm f/4.0 IS is a hyped up lens and for most purposes peice of junk if you don't need the macro. Many review sites confirm that it has boarderline image quality in the middle of the focal range. Both the-digital-picture.com and lensrentals confirm that it is very poor in the middle of the focal range, and that's after testing just under 30 copies. Lens rentals downplays it's performance in the middle of the focal range, but it's actually worse at 50mm than the 24-105mm is at 24mm, and most people complain about that lens at 24mm. In fact it has the lowest single average score with multiple copies tested and averaged at 50mm than any other pro normal zoom. It's so bad that no matter how much you stop it down at 50mm, it will never be as sharp as the 24-105mm is at 50mm wide open, because it hits the diffraction limit before the IQ becomes anything less than extremely poor.

This lens is so incredibly bad at 50mm, that the old entry level non-pro 28-135mm IS that has very poor reviews is actually much much better at 50mm f/4.5 than this lens is at 50mm f/4.5. Which is a serious acheivement for a pro lens.

I purchased a copy and did an extensive comparison with over 600 shots of a test target and after doing both visual comparison and computer analysis from 24-70mm the 24-70mm f/4 had EQUAL image quality to the 24-105mm, if not slightly worse on average. It was much better at 24mm, much much worse at 50mm and around equal at 70mm. To say the least it went straight back, I don't need a lens that has worse image quality, costs nearly twice as much and has only 2/3rds the zoom range.

I know of at least 3 people that have purchased this lens on hype and returned it. Besides that it's a terrible investment as Canon is sure to drop the price over 30% in the next 6 months as they have done with every new release in the last year. While the 24-105mm has a virtually fixed price.

This lens WILL be better for you if you want macro, need a slightly smaller and lighter lens (very slight) or shoot at 24mm and 70mm more than 40mm,50mm, & 60mm, but again it's twice as much and slated for a huge price drop.

I am going to purchase a prime lens in the 85-135mm range, mostly for portraits and indoor shots on my 6D. I already have a 70-200mm 2.8 II, but I often don't want to lug all that weight around.

I've been leaning towards the 135L, but recently have been thinking about buying a 100L macro for roughly the same cost as the 135 and using it for portraits and tightly framed indoor shots. The 100L's macro capability would just be a nice plus I probably wouldn't use that much.

My concern with the 100L macro for my intended use is that I've heard it is soft beyond 10-15 feet. I certainly need a lens that is capable of sharp pictures at longer ranges than that. Does anyone who has used this lens have any comments or experience to share?

Since portrait and general purpose shooting is my primary need, should I just skip the macro lens for now and pick up the 135L? I imagine I'll own both lenses eventually, but it might be 6-12 months before my next lens purchase.

The 100mm macro has harsh bokeh past macro distance. It should never be chosen as a portrait lens.

This is the same guy who say this about the 100mmL...

I wonder about your "reviews"... so far you couldn't be farther from the truth. I call total BS.

I like the 24-70mm f/4 IS very much. I originally bought the f/2.8 MkII, it is a fantastic lens, however I need the IS for low light event shooting. But, back to the subject at hand, while I had the 2.8 MkII I rented the Tamron, in my opinion, not as good as Canon. When the f/4 came out, I rented it and compared it to the f/2.8 and "for what I need" the f/4 was the winner and I returned the f/2.8 and bought the f/4. All comparisons done on a 5dMkIII.

Price was not the issue, the new hybrid IS on the f/4 allows me more than enough room to make up for the one stop difference and I get all the benefits of IS (yes, I give up one stop of DOF, but check out the DOF calculator - it is minimal). Where in the world these folks are coming from saying the 24-105 IQ is better than the 24-70 f/4, either don't own the 24-70 f/4 or they are trolls. The IS on the 24-105 is old 2nd generation and does not hold a candle to the new 24-70 f/4 and 70-200 f/2.8 MkII. This hybrid IS is rock solid.

I just wish the naysayers would come out and honestly say whether they have actually shot with the lens or not. Further, on an actual shoot and not shooting a bunch of test circles. (I have never been paid a penny for test shots). Finally, I need IS and it is my money, so don't critisize me for my shortcomings (unless you are willing to pay good money for it).

I love Canon products and applaud them for offering a wide range of great products with a wide range of price points. Finally, if they introduce a f/2.8 IS, I would strongly consider buying it just because I can!

I like the 24-70mm f/4 IS very much. I originally bought the f/2.8 MkII, it is a fantastic lens, however I need the IS for low light event shooting.

I'm confused by how much some people lean on IS for low-light photography. Stabilizing only accounts for one problem of low-light photography. It compensates for camera movement. It's great at doing that, but it can never compensate for subject movement. For me, shooting slower than 1/60th is not an option for available light event shooting. (Of course, with flashes, who needs IS anyways?)

A wider aperture solves both problems, at least more than the same lens (on paper) stabilized with a narrower aperture. I would much rather have a faster lens without IS than otherwise. Especially one that's being heralded as the sharpest medium zoom lens yet made.

Another thing to consider, if you're on a 5D3.. The double-cross-type focus points in the center (ie. the diagonal AF sensors) are for lenses f/2.8 or faster. Slap a f/4 lens on, and they become normal single-cross-types. You're missing out on the peak performance of your autofocus. Maybe makes a difference? Maybe not, but something to consider as well.

Of course, if video enters the equation, then stabilizing becomes much more valuable, since subject motion blur is to be expected, but I'm not really qualified to compare these lenses for video, though.

uh...you weren't kidding. that was about the most entertaining review i've ever seen. my new favorite people...asian guys with irreverent and dry humor done in british accent!

i could watch that guy review paper plates.

i've no interest in the 24-70mm F4 however.

Yeah, the DigitalRev crew is very entertaining. You just have to accept that they're biased towards Canon.... and Nikon... and Sony... and Leica... and Fuji... actually, I think their bias changes every video.

They're like the Top Gear of photography. (The proper one, not the awful American version.) All they need is a Cool Wall and a Stig.

I'm confused by how much some people lean on IS for low-light photography. Stabilizing only accounts for one problem of low-light photography. It compensates for camera movement. It's great at doing that, but it can never compensate for subject movement. For me, shooting slower than 1/60th is not an option for available light event shooting. (Of course, with flashes, who needs IS anyways?)

i feel the same way for still photography. IS generally is the wrong solution for so many problems...very rarely is it the right solution. but the video guys i think find it much more useful. not sure how often they are using zooms. i have seen the the 70-200mm 2.8 being employed by videographers but usually it is primes when they go wide. dunno about this lens.